Literature DB >> 18095813

What should be the optimal cut points for mild, moderate, and severe pain?

Kathy K Li1, Kristin Harris, Stephanie Hadi, Edward Chow.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Grouping patients' rating of pain intensity from 0 to 10 into categories of mild, moderate, and severe pain is useful for informing treatment decisions, interpreting study outcomes, as well as aiding policy or clinical practice guidelines development. In 1995, Serlin and colleagues developed a technique to establish the cut points for mild, moderate, and severe pain by grading pain intensity with functional interference. Since then, a number of studies attempted to confirm these findings in similar or different populations but had different results. Such inconsistencies in the literature prompt for more research to establish the definition of mild, moderate and severe pain. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to identify optimal cut points (CP) of the three pain severity categories for worst, average, and current pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population (n = 199) was patients with symptomatic bone metastases referred to a palliative radiotherapy clinic. Using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), patients reported their worst, average, and current pain intensity, as well as the degree of functional interference due to pain. All possible combinations for the CPs, between 2 and 8, were created and related to the set of 7 interference items from the BPI using the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The criteria used to determine the optimal set of cut points for mild, moderate and severe pain was a MANOVA among pain severity categories that yielded the largest F ratio for the between-category effect on the 7 interference items as indicated by Pillai's trace, Wilk's lambda, and Hotelling's trace F statistics.
RESULTS: Results confirmed a non-linear relationship between cancer pain severity and functional interference. The optimal CP for worst and average pain was CP4, 6 (mild = 1-4, moderate = 5-6, and severe = 7-10), confirming Serlin and colleagues's findings.
CONCLUSION: These findings are pivotal in further understanding the meaning of pain intensity levels and the assessment of pain in patients with metastatic cancer. However, further research in alternative methods of defining the optimal CP and clinically important change should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18095813     DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2007.0087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Palliat Med        ISSN: 1557-7740            Impact factor:   2.947


  35 in total

1.  The Brief Pain Inventory and its "pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item: clinical trial endpoint considerations.

Authors:  Thomas M Atkinson; Tito R Mendoza; Laura Sit; Steven Passik; Howard I Scher; Charles Cleeland; Ethan Basch
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 3.750

2.  Practical Dyspnea Assessment: Relationship Between the 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale and the Four-Level Categorical Verbal Descriptor Scale of Dyspnea Intensity.

Authors:  Nicholas G Wysham; Benjamin J Miriovsky; David C Currow; James E Herndon; Gregory P Samsa; Andrew Wilcock; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 3.612

3.  Parallel modeling of pain and depression in prediction of relapse during buprenorphine and naloxone treatment: A finite mixture model.

Authors:  Noel A Vest; Sterling McPherson; G Leonard Burns; Sarah Tragesser
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 4.492

4.  Defining mild, moderate, and severe pain in young people with physical disabilities.

Authors:  Jordi Miró; Rocío de la Vega; Ester Solé; Mélanie Racine; Mark P Jensen; Santiago Gálan; Joyce M Engel
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 3.033

5.  Revisiting classification of pain from bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe based on correlation with function and quality of life.

Authors:  Edward Chow; Keyue Ding; Wendy R Parulekar; Rebecca K S Wong; Yvette M van der Linden; Daniel Roos; William F Hartsell; Peter Hoskin; Jackson S Y Wu; Abdenour Nabid; Francisca Ong; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Scott Babington; William F Demas; Carolyn F Wilson; Michael Brundage; Liting Zhu; Ralph M Meyer
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Pain and physical and psychological symptoms in ambulatory HIV patients in the current treatment era.

Authors:  Jessica S Merlin; Liyi Cen; Amy Praestgaard; Michelle Turner; Aura Obando; Craig Alpert; Sophie Woolston; David Casarett; Jay Kostman; Robert Gross; Ian Frank
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 3.612

7.  Pain in long-term breast cancer survivors: frequency, severity, and impact.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Hao-Yuan Chang; Yeur-Hur Lai; Karen L Syrjala; Jesse R Fann; Julie R Gralow
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 3.750

8.  Chronic pain has a small influence and mood has no influence on vibrotactile perception thresholds among working women.

Authors:  Helena Sandén; B Gunnar Wallin; Mats Hagberg
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.217

9.  Classification of painful bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe using both EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and EORTC QLQ-BM22.

Authors:  Rachel McDonald; Keyue Ding; Edward Chow; Ralph M Meyer; Abdenour Nabid; Pierre Chabot; Genevieve Coulombe; Shahida Ahmed; Joda Kuk; Rashid Dar; Aamer Mahmud; Alysa Fairchild; Carolyn F Wilson; Jackson S Y Wu; Kristopher Dennis; Carlo DeAngelis; Rebecca K S Wong; Liting Zhu; Michael Brundage
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Pain assessment using the NIH Toolbox.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; Winnie Dunn; James W Griffith; M Tracy Morrison; Jennifer Tanquary; Dory Sabata; David Victorson; Leeanne M Carey; Joy C Macdermid; Brian J Dudgeon; Richard C Gershon
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 9.910

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.